Judging for Marquette University High School (MUHS)

I usually judge a couple times a years as needed for the team.

How fast can students speak during speeches? Not preferential to faster speeds. If you are speaking too fast or unclear, I will let you know with a hand motion.

Evaluating the Round

Framework is most successful when its appropriately used or applied during the round. Most applicable when its mentioned more than in just the introductory speeches. If you ask me to weigh framework in the round, I'm open to doing so.

Value and value criterion are at the preference of the debater if they merge into FW and it makes sense within the round.

I'm okay with plan text and counterplans, but I sway a little more traditional in LD debates in a K.

Overall major point/win goes to the competitor who can weigh impacts, apply appropriate frameworks (when applicable within the round) all while your contentions hold up after the round.

I’m a very simple judge, not many presences or bias towards different types of arguments. I am good with understanding theory or T. My decisions are made simply based on what arguments are won on the flow. Technicalities are a big thing for me, if you make drops or fail to properly extend arguments I will not consider them. I have over 5 years of judging experience in Policy, LD. PF.

I did parliamentary debate and IPDA in college for three years; however, this is my first year judging LD. I also did Forensics in college so I do value speaking style. Even though I never competed in LD, speed is usually okay with me. With that being said, if you are talking so fast that I can't understand what you are saying and it sounds like you are choking on your breathe, I will yell clear just as I expect your opponents too as well. If you continue to speak as you are, not only will it harm your speaks, but I will put my pen down and stop flowing. Debate is not about how much you can get in; it's about what you're arguing. If no one can understand you...It's a poor way of debating.

-I have a communication and political science degree. Do what you will with that information.

-As for arguments... I expect every argument to have a clear claim, warrant, evidence, and impact. If you don't have all four components than it's not a complete argument.

-Moreover, I really value organization. If I am not sure where you are, I will try to put arguments where I think they belong on the flow, but that might not be where you want it. SO be as organized as possible for both your opponent and I!

-As a judge, you should tell me why I should vote a certain way and how you have won (weigh it against your opponent/ impact calc). Have clear voters at the end of the round so that I can weigh the arguments you want me to focus on.

-I am a clean slate, so even if I don't agree with you, as long as you argue it the best, than you will win it.

-If you are going to run K's, counter plans, T's, etc, make it GOOD. Don't run it just to run it; do it because you believe it's a great argument.

-I do tend to like more "policy" arguments, however I do understand theory and its place in debate.

-If you are running a plan or counter plan, aff/ neg needs to prove all stock issues to win (as they should). Understand where the burden lies and who has to prove what. Explain everything you are running because you cannot assume that your judge or opponents know what you are arguing.

Small pet peeves:

-Stand up during the debate. This is not a casual event.

-Debate isn't really the forum for cussing unless it ACTUALLY relates to the debate.

-Don't be assholes. This can quickly turn into a BIG pet peeve. I really value respect in debate.

-If you get super graphic without a trigger warning, you will be dropped. Be cognoscent of your opponents, judges, and audience members. Again, this can quickly turn into a BIG BIG pet peeve.

-I already gave you this in depth paradigm so I am not going to repeat it in person.

-I flow CX.

-No, I will not disclose the decision. Don't ask.

-If you wanna ask questions during prep, I am cool with it.

gruverg52@gmail.com

I am a very simple judge. I prefer stats and logic over something that you know off the top of your head. I also do not understand speed all that well, I'm trying my best with it but I've had trouble understanding it since my debate years. PLEASE HAVE ALL OF THE EVIDENCE FOR EVERYTHING YOU ARE GOING TO READ. I will not stress that enough. Little to no evidence will cost you an entire round with me as your judge.I love when competitors clash especially during CX (trust I did it during debates a lot), so just generally clash but don't be rude about it. I will listen to outrageous (out of the box cases) and I find them fun. So if you are willing to do it and take the risk, go for it! Sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, Islamophobia, and any other negative -phobias or -isms will absolutely not be tolerated. You'll get the lowest speaks I can give and I'll find a reason to drop you. Debate is meant to be inclusive, not hurtful. I'll give you pretty high speaks unless you're rude or offensive.